Story Poster
Photo by Mike Wondolowski
Cal Football

Cal's Athletic Future - And what FOX Sports and others are missing

August 12, 2023
67,197

In the next seven days, Cal believes it will have a clear answer to its athletic future.  Will the ACC offer admission?   Will the Big Ten come up with enough of a financial commitment to make Cal viable?   Or will Cal be forced to remain in a reimagined Pac-12 whose members will primarily be Group of 5 members from the American and Mountain West Conference?

Let’s start with setting some context.  And that doesn’t include how we got here and who and what may be to blame for the current situation.    What’s relevant is where we are today and how Cal can emerge in a place that preserves the scope and ambition of its athletic endeavors and the essential yet ephemeral connection it provides the world’s leading public institution of higher learning to its students, alumni, and donors.   The other helpful backdrop is that college football is in the middle of an increasingly accelerating realization that it is better defined as a multi-billion dollar media business rather than a bastion of amateur athletics.

Without opining on whether this is a positive change for the constituencies involved or not, let’s accept this is our reality.  And that for at least two decades, Cal and many other schools have supported a diverse number of sports on the backs of the revenue being generated by Football and to a far lesser extent Men’s Basketball.   That revenue became an entitlement that has shifted the decision-making power of college athletics from the hands of University presidents to those of Sports Network executives.   And the status quo of powerful conferences and their highly paid commissioners only adds to the underbrush that delays what is inevitable.

A unified BCS Football organization that can manage broader TV rights would be to the benefit of all of the schools, overseeing the competitive dynamics to create an even playing field inclusive of NIL, the transfer portal, and the operation of the highly lucrative and fan-pleasing 8+ team playoff.  In the wake of Cal finding itself on the wrong side of a game of musical chairs, the imperative becomes ensuring that it has a place in this future entity.   Unfortunately, this is not a situation where time and patience will create that reality.   A single season for Cal outside the BCS will almost certainly prove fatal to its ability to retain its student-athletes, support their non-revenue sports, and sustain the donor and fan interest that are the lifeblood of the athletic department.

Cal is not alone, their long-time rival Stanford finds itself in the same predicament.   And whilst the financial dynamics are different for the two schools, they are working in lockstep to preserve the future of their athletic departments.    It’s my understanding that there is robust communication and alignment of interest between soon-to-be retired Chancellor Christ and Stanford interim President Richard Saller.

Both schools have made joining the B10 the top priority with the ACC a less ideal lifeline.  The options beyond that are simply different takes that would best remind one of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  According to multiple sources, the B10 Presidents are in strong support of the additions of Stanford and Cal.  The overwhelming logic of the school's academic credentials, the opportunity to meaningfully mitigate the travel requirements for the other West Coast B10 members, and access to the Bay Area’s media markets which are rife with the alumni of the historic and future members of the B10.

The impediment is that FOX Sports does not believe the additional allocation of capital for Cal and Stanford is worth the value that they will bring.  Thus, they are not willing to offer anything even remotely in the neighborhood of what Oregon and UW have been committed.  Whilst one can argue that Cal and Stanford should be near-term immune to the financials given the chance that there will be no life raft of any value remaining, the reality is that simply being a member of the Big10 (or any conference) is not a sufficiency.  The B10 does not want wildly uncompetitive members, whilst the value of being a BCS school for Cal and Stanford becomes only optics and the dire consequences to athletic department revenue, fan, and donor interest remain.

As has been reported by ESPN and others, the ACC needs 12 of their current 15 schools to approve any new additions and currently, the Bay Area schools are one vote shy of meeting that requirement.  The ACC provides a potential bridge to the final evolution of BCS football yet in almost every other way imaginable is problematic.    No West Coast pod means travel requirements will be beyond onerous and highly expensive further reducing the value of the revenue stream they provide.

I’m told that one certainty in a situation where very little can be relied on is that regardless of the outcome of Cal’s conference affiliation, the school will be forced to reduce the number of sports it supports.  In my mind, this is a long overdue albeit painful measure needed to ensure the long-term viability of the athletic department.

As Chancellor Christ, AD Jim Knowlton, and their advisors burn up the phone and zoom lines between now and Friday, the fulcrum of their efforts will be focused on convincing the media experts who are currently unconvinced that Cal and Stanford will add significant revenue heft to their TV deals.  In my mind, those folks have short memories and limited imaginations.  To wit:

  • The commonly repeated narrative that Cal doesn’t invest in its football and basketball programs is stale news that no longer reflects reality.  This isn’t to say that the University has made the necessary commitments over the past dozen years, but rather that Cal’s donor base has bridged the gap such that Cal’s total football budget now finds itself in the top half of the Pac-12 of 2023 (inclusive of USC and UCLA).   That takes into account coaching salaries, the size, and salaries of the support staff, recruiting budgets, etc.
  • Cal’s NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal.   The proof is obvious given the success that both Men’s Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal
  • The changes above are recent and should start to show up in success on the football field and basketball court these upcoming seasons, reigniting the fan base and meaningfully changing the calculus of any TV viewership analysis
  • Only five short years ago, Stanford was a national power in football with regular appearances in the Rose Bowl.   Less than fifteen years ago, Jeff Tedford led Cal to a seven-year run of national prominence as the clear 2nd best program in the Pac-10 behind only Pete Carrol’s storied USC program.   And most importantly, Cal’s TV ratings and game attendance during that period were top-tier by any relative measure
  • Cal has one of the largest alumni bases in the country and one of the wealthiest.  The potential value of those eyeballs should not be lost on FOX or other media networks.  Stanford’s are even wealthier albeit it against a smaller and less engaged fan base
  • The Bay Area is the nation’s 7th largest media market and it’s home to hundred’s of thousands of alums of Ohio State, Virginia, Duke, Michigan, Northwestern, et al not to mention UCLA, USC, UW, and Oregon.  That’s an audience that is going to care about Stanford and Cal as they are their opponents and rivals within their conference.
  • Beyond the revenue sports, the ACC and B10 networks need shoulder content and the value of Cal and Stanford’s Olympic sports offerings is as good as any two schools in the nation.  Not to mention the media value and inclusion of the star-studded alums in the NFL, NBA, and MLB from the two schools
  • It’s an understandable concern from the networks and members of the ACC and B10 that Cal and Stanford’s administrations may not be as fully committed to their revenue sports as they would like.  However, the answer is as simple as asking the question.  The leaders at both schools now have the type of fulsome clarity which only the potential extinction of their current athletic departments can provide.   Christ and Saller can and should lay out for their potential partners how they plan to invest in football and basketball, not only to help them be relevant on the national stage but to effectively buttress the capital needed for their non-revenue sports.  As pointed out above, Cal can point to its near-term cutting of non-revenue sports as well as its passionate and deep-pocketed donor base as well as the historical embrace of a winning team by its fans to underscore their potential as part of their forward-looking plan

This next week is going to be a roller coaster ride that has no rails and one in which Cal does not control its own fate.   The hope is that the TV execs and potential new conference partners can think long-term and take the time to truly understand the value of having Cal as part of the future of College sports.

Discussion from...

Cal's Athletic Future - And what FOX Sports and others are missing

49,675 Views | 170 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by phyrux
philly1121
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Correct me if I'm wrong but, wasn't today the deadline for FSU declaring an exit from the ACC? With that deadline having passed and there seems to be no impetus in adding either them or Clemson to the B1G - are we once again knocking on a door that won't open?
philbert
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but, wasn't today the deadline for FSU declaring an exit from the ACC? With that deadline having passed and there seems to be no impetus in adding either them or Clemson to the B1G - are we once again knocking on a door that won't open?
trying to flip a no vote.
bearsandgiants
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but, wasn't today the deadline for FSU declaring an exit from the ACC? With that deadline having passed and there seems to be no impetus in adding either them or Clemson to the B1G - are we once again knocking on a door that won't open?


Is it not today anymore?
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DoubtfulBear said:

BarcaBear said:

DoubtfulBear said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BearGreg said:

StarsDoMatter said:

"Cal's NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal. The proof is obvious given the success that both Men's Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal"

You have to be kidding?!

Our transfer portal "success" is mediocre at best. Recruiting might the worst it's ever been.

We need to be honest with ourselves.
247 ranked Cal's Tranfer Class in 2023 15th nationally
On3 ranked the same transfer football clas 24th nationally

In basketball, On3 ranked Cal's basketball class 7th in the country
247 ranked the class 18th in the country


And yet the media picked Cal to finish near the bottom of the PAC-12 and most betting sites have us missing a bowl game yet again. When you look at what Cal has done in a vacuum, it seems like progress, but not when you take our competition into consideration.

Bottom line, the conferences and media companies have done the math and determined Cal adds little to no value.
you're flat out confusing two completely separate entities. media and college presidents.

Entity 1: corporate media have done the math and know that the Bay Area is the #10 media market. UCLA and USC have ZERO pull in this area for media. no media company would be facepalmingly dunderheaded enough to leave out the #10 media market (which btw, in times of economic duress, that media market becomes a strong factor in societal cohesion, relevant insofar as the region clings more to entertainment during hard times, and those hard times are coming). there is a reason they are not pushing harder for it.

Entity 2: college presidents are trying to hoard as much of the wealth as possible, because they are converting universities into businesses. those college presidents are the ones giving the heisman stiff arm to whatever colleges they can. the giants of college football have been whining about sharing money with mid to low level schools for decades. this finally allows them to shift the distribution of money in a way that reflects their belief that they should keep it all and give scraps to everyone else that they can.

do you honestly think a mediocre Arizona (media market #71, population of 550k) and Arizona St. (media market #12, population 1.8 million) is better than Cal and Stanford in a media market #10, population of 7.8 million people? you didn't do the math, but entertainment companies have.

companies can do the math. college presidents can, too. the reason for keeping Cal and Stanford out has different reasons. if the Conferences were genuinely trying to get Cal and Stanford in, then the argument is self explanatory, all media companies can do the math, and we would already be in a different conference.

but...at this point, the media companies aren't forcing the conferences because they see the opportunity of hiding behind college presidents in order to low ball the price for the Bay Area media market and get it for pennies on the dollar. except for FOX, and their ulterior motive.

*i have said elsewhere that Cal is fighting a weird rightwing paranoia about being a communist haven when the university has never ever even remotely been leftist. Its uneducated alumns in the South and Midwest and East Coast who don't realize that California banned affirmative action almost 30 years ago. So, when folks bring up that FOX chopped off the B1G balls, that is literally why. Someone posted the Clemson forums and more than half of the gibberish in that forum is that rightwing delusional fantasy about Cal being a fountain of revolutionary antifa. FOX is literally trying to smash Cal, and oddly enough, Stanford is getting smacked for it as well, and all because a bunch of non-student hippies swarmed Cal's campus in the 60's leading to Reagan having tear gas dropped on their heads. Cal is not leftist, but we are intellectual snobs. i don't think the snobs is why we get slammed by schools on the other side of the country.




Won't comment on all the conspiracy theories being thrown around here, however I question the argument about the Bay Area media market. Yes, it's the number ten media market but that doesn't translate into people actually watching and paying attention to Cal and Stanford games. The viewership isn't reflective of the size of the market. As for the Colorado and Arizona schools, my assumption is their respective leadership was much more aggressive in seeking a path out of the PAC-12 and they may be viewed as more likely to support and build respectable programs going forward with the increase in media revenue. Small markets with higher potential essentially.
nothing conspiratorial at all. this is data that is out there. multiple published sources have cited all this in one way or another. You have high hopes for what Colorado and Arizona schools can pull, i think them being brought into the B12 was more about cheaply bringing in schools that could boost them without increasing costs of travel. the TV model doesn't bode well for them.

you do bring up something I have spoken about elsewhere. TV viewership.
this isn't the Midwest or the South, the number of people watching TV is plummeting, Keep in mind this is California, not the rest of the country, and the following data is national, our percentages skew even lower.

Who follows the archaic (not meant as an insult) model of watching sports? it's basically the Boomer generation, like 50% watch cable TV. Gen X mirrors that with folks over 50, but those below that start breaking dramatically with that archaic model upon which all these contracts are built.

Between 19-25% of Millenials and Gen Z watch cable TV, rest are streaming. Younger they get the less cable TV they watch. I'm on the younger part of Gen X and since graduating I know almost nobody that watches sports using Cable TV. They don't subscribe. Younger folks stream. Not only do we stream, but almost nobody pays for subscriptions. It's folks using VPN's or TOR browser to stream illegally. Hate to break it to y'all, but that is the reality for sports moving forward. They haven't figured out a revenue model to offset this.

There is no brand allegiance, no morality notions that will ever break this trend. I think this is particular to East Coast and West Coast, for now, where youth demographics and tech knowledge reigns supreme. FOX, NBC, CBS are massively overpaying, because I said earlier, those percentages are national percentages.

Apple knows this, and this is the analytics behind why Apple came in with a very realistic offer of market value at around 20 million. Disney also knows this which is why ESPN isn't putting up FOX money. LA has the same problem. ignoring the joke of Neilsen ratings and turning to Adobe analytics...the Arizona schools and Colorado are a embarrasingly bad and make ZERO sense. Calford both average 850k per week, double that of the Arizona schools and triple that of Colorado. USC (2 million per week), UCLA (1.59 million)

USC will get the turnout for Buck Eyes, but empty stadiums for Minnesota, Rutgers, and Maryland... why? because the NFL finally returned to LA, and that means the non-alumn fair weather fans dropped them and went to the Rams, and for Raiders fans being in Las Vegas is better than Oakland, so they are setting aside their money for Vegas trips. LA market has same youth issues as we do. None of this is unknown by the media execs, and if it is, then they have serious issues of incompetence.

What are the reasons that people speculate for why FOX won't let the B1G add Calford?

If they know this data then they massively overpaid for the LA market, and it doesn't really make sense over the next decade, but with the current situation FOX could get the #10 market on the cheap. and we can boost numbers quickly in ways that LA really can't. refer to others pointing out that Bay Area lost two pro sports teams. Calford have been having middling years and our Adobe analytics for TV show it, which means we get significant boosts if we play the majority of the B1G teams.

The only ACC teams with better numbers than Calford are? Clemson, Notre Dame, FSU, and NC State. UNC is right between Cal (857k) and Stanford (847). the rest are below us. Washington State, btw, averages 907k.

so... why would FOX, given the data, go after NC State and UNC, after they get Clemson and FSU to join the Big 10, but not Cal and Stanford? We have way better potential for ratings increases than either UNC or NC State. so...either multiple sources are lying and FOX doesn't have ulterior motives, or...you are wrong? The data all points to that you are flat out wrong.





So Fox sports has a political agenda against Cal, that's the gist of your argument?
are you not paying attention?
your lack of argumentation concedes all points, otherwise your argument is that Fox is incompetent and can't do basic math. lol

NC State, Clemson, Notre Dame, and FSU are the ONLY ACC schools better than Cal's media numbers. They all have (rumored) gaurantees to join B1G.

Those schools can't really increase significantly in viewership because they live in football country. and none of them really need to increase in numbers. Cal's numbers point to the potential for significant growth, to the numbers we had during the Marshawn, DeSean years. That gives us a lot of upside. and FOX can get us on the cheap right now. and they aren't. so you are obviously struggling with the math as much as you imply Fox is.
No struggle on this side and based on the current situation, my take on the so-called Bay Area market "value" aligns with the media companies and major conference views. Maybe the Big Ten and ACC are interested in taking us in, but clearly very far from full share. Yes, the Bay Area is a major media market, but despite our supposed potential, Cal has never garnered much attention locally or nationally. In 2022, Cal had 857,000 average viewers per week. Arizona and Arizona state averaged 506,000 and 314,000 a week in significantly smaller markets. Since 2016, Cal has had only 16 games with over one million viewers compared to 22 for ASU and 14 for Arizona. That's pathetic given the relative size of media markets involved. Look at attendance figures in 2022, which was a terrible year for Cal, Arizona, ASU and Colorado, yet all three of those schools averaged better attendance than Cal. Lots of talk about potential, but Cal has shown time and again they never reach it. I imagine when the media/conference presidents do the math, they realize Cal is institutionally challenged and if Cal did see additional media revenue, it wouldn't go into elevating football and basketball programs which would in turn elevate the conference. I imagine Arizona, ASU and Colorado leadership all pitched that additional media revenue would be used to improve their competitiveness. You think Knowlton can make that pitch?

Like it or not, college sports finally stopped pretending to be about student athletes and has shown its true colors as a multi-billion dollar business. Decisions are being made on risk and reward versus tradition and history and Cal is simply not a good investment at this time. You're welcome to rationalize the why, but money talks and right now, there is very little money coming to Cal.

any upswing in our performance and our ratings jump significantly, theirs wont because they are already pretty much at the max they will ever go because of their limited population size and the size of their media market.
Stanford has dominated PAC12 and has been in the national conversation over the last decade. Did ratings jump? Did all the millions of Bay Area households suddenly buy cable subscriptions? Talking about potential is sad and pathetic at this point. Like a fat and balding 40 year old saying he has the potential to make him an NFL QB because he's distant cousins with Jared Goff
Stanford's student body is tiny, ours isn't. Stanford is also all the way down in a part of the Bay that nobody really lives in except for very rich people, and the tiny sliver of land where workers live. Our numbers were much higher during Tedford's Marshawn and DeSean years. so, it isn't well wishing, but you keep clinging to an opinion that isn't grounded in the statistics we have seen. my point holds, and you cant negate it with your feelings.

if you insist on refusing to comprehend, then go dig up the ratings data and see for yourself. you really need to look at the viewing numbers. nielsen ratings are what they are, but you will have to account for the date we are getting from Adobe analytics in understanding what happens with viewership. enjoy pouring through the stats and finally understanding.


Tell me which scenario is more plausible:
1. All the media networks have looked at viewer data and ran hundreds of scenarios but ultimately decided that Cal's value isn't there even if viewers increased significantly from todays lows.

2. All the media networks have an irrational hatred against Cal and are leaving significant money on the table because they are emotionally driven to see Cal football fail.


I think they are just trying to get Cal and Stanford as cheaply as they can by feigning complete lack of interest. It worked for Oregon and Washington.

BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DoubtfulBear said:

BarcaBear said:

DoubtfulBear said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:




















Tell me which scenario is more plausible:
1. All the media networks have looked at viewer data and ran hundreds of scenarios but ultimately decided that Cal's value isn't there even if viewers increased significantly from todays lows.

2. All the media networks have an irrational hatred against Cal and are leaving significant money on the table because they are emotionally driven to see Cal football fail.
You present a false choice, of course.

ESPN is apparently ready to put up enough money to make adding Cal and Stanford to the ACC either revenue-neutral or better for the existing ACC members. But so far, money isn't enough to get that 12th yes vote.

calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

DoubtfulBear said:

BarcaBear said:

DoubtfulBear said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:




















Tell me which scenario is more plausible:
1. All the media networks have looked at viewer data and ran hundreds of scenarios but ultimately decided that Cal's value isn't there even if viewers increased significantly from todays lows.

2. All the media networks have an irrational hatred against Cal and are leaving significant money on the table because they are emotionally driven to see Cal football fail.
You present a false choice, of course.

ESPN is apparently ready to put up enough money to make adding Cal and Stanford to the ACC either revenue-neutral or better for the existing ACC members. But so far, money isn't enough to get that 12th yes vote.




Exactly. ESPN thinks adding us is worth MORE than full ACC share and a majority of the ACC wants us. 4 schools are holding the league hostage as leverage for more money, an exit, and/or just as a tantrum because they are pissed they signed away their GORs for less than they think they are worth.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DoubtfulBear said:

BarcaBear said:

DoubtfulBear said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BearGreg said:

StarsDoMatter said:

"Cal's NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal. The proof is obvious given the success that both Men's Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal"

You have to be kidding?!

Our transfer portal "success" is mediocre at best. Recruiting might the worst it's ever been.

We need to be honest with ourselves.
247 ranked Cal's Tranfer Class in 2023 15th nationally
On3 ranked the same transfer football clas 24th nationally

In basketball, On3 ranked Cal's basketball class 7th in the country
247 ranked the class 18th in the country


And yet the media picked Cal to finish near the bottom of the PAC-12 and most betting sites have us missing a bowl game yet again. When you look at what Cal has done in a vacuum, it seems like progress, but not when you take our competition into consideration.

Bottom line, the conferences and media companies have done the math and determined Cal adds little to no value.
you're flat out confusing two completely separate entities. media and college presidents.

Entity 1: corporate media have done the math and know that the Bay Area is the #10 media market. UCLA and USC have ZERO pull in this area for media. no media company would be facepalmingly dunderheaded enough to leave out the #10 media market (which btw, in times of economic duress, that media market becomes a strong factor in societal cohesion, relevant insofar as the region clings more to entertainment during hard times, and those hard times are coming). there is a reason they are not pushing harder for it.

Entity 2: college presidents are trying to hoard as much of the wealth as possible, because they are converting universities into businesses. those college presidents are the ones giving the heisman stiff arm to whatever colleges they can. the giants of college football have been whining about sharing money with mid to low level schools for decades. this finally allows them to shift the distribution of money in a way that reflects their belief that they should keep it all and give scraps to everyone else that they can.

do you honestly think a mediocre Arizona (media market #71, population of 550k) and Arizona St. (media market #12, population 1.8 million) is better than Cal and Stanford in a media market #10, population of 7.8 million people? you didn't do the math, but entertainment companies have.

companies can do the math. college presidents can, too. the reason for keeping Cal and Stanford out has different reasons. if the Conferences were genuinely trying to get Cal and Stanford in, then the argument is self explanatory, all media companies can do the math, and we would already be in a different conference.

but...at this point, the media companies aren't forcing the conferences because they see the opportunity of hiding behind college presidents in order to low ball the price for the Bay Area media market and get it for pennies on the dollar. except for FOX, and their ulterior motive.

*i have said elsewhere that Cal is fighting a weird rightwing paranoia about being a communist haven when the university has never ever even remotely been leftist. Its uneducated alumns in the South and Midwest and East Coast who don't realize that California banned affirmative action almost 30 years ago. So, when folks bring up that FOX chopped off the B1G balls, that is literally why. Someone posted the Clemson forums and more than half of the gibberish in that forum is that rightwing delusional fantasy about Cal being a fountain of revolutionary antifa. FOX is literally trying to smash Cal, and oddly enough, Stanford is getting smacked for it as well, and all because a bunch of non-student hippies swarmed Cal's campus in the 60's leading to Reagan having tear gas dropped on their heads. Cal is not leftist, but we are intellectual snobs. i don't think the snobs is why we get slammed by schools on the other side of the country.




Won't comment on all the conspiracy theories being thrown around here, however I question the argument about the Bay Area media market. Yes, it's the number ten media market but that doesn't translate into people actually watching and paying attention to Cal and Stanford games. The viewership isn't reflective of the size of the market. As for the Colorado and Arizona schools, my assumption is their respective leadership was much more aggressive in seeking a path out of the PAC-12 and they may be viewed as more likely to support and build respectable programs going forward with the increase in media revenue. Small markets with higher potential essentially.
nothing conspiratorial at all. this is data that is out there. multiple published sources have cited all this in one way or another. You have high hopes for what Colorado and Arizona schools can pull, i think them being brought into the B12 was more about cheaply bringing in schools that could boost them without increasing costs of travel. the TV model doesn't bode well for them.

you do bring up something I have spoken about elsewhere. TV viewership.
this isn't the Midwest or the South, the number of people watching TV is plummeting, Keep in mind this is California, not the rest of the country, and the following data is national, our percentages skew even lower.

Who follows the archaic (not meant as an insult) model of watching sports? it's basically the Boomer generation, like 50% watch cable TV. Gen X mirrors that with folks over 50, but those below that start breaking dramatically with that archaic model upon which all these contracts are built.

Between 19-25% of Millenials and Gen Z watch cable TV, rest are streaming. Younger they get the less cable TV they watch. I'm on the younger part of Gen X and since graduating I know almost nobody that watches sports using Cable TV. They don't subscribe. Younger folks stream. Not only do we stream, but almost nobody pays for subscriptions. It's folks using VPN's or TOR browser to stream illegally. Hate to break it to y'all, but that is the reality for sports moving forward. They haven't figured out a revenue model to offset this.

There is no brand allegiance, no morality notions that will ever break this trend. I think this is particular to East Coast and West Coast, for now, where youth demographics and tech knowledge reigns supreme. FOX, NBC, CBS are massively overpaying, because I said earlier, those percentages are national percentages.

Apple knows this, and this is the analytics behind why Apple came in with a very realistic offer of market value at around 20 million. Disney also knows this which is why ESPN isn't putting up FOX money. LA has the same problem. ignoring the joke of Neilsen ratings and turning to Adobe analytics...the Arizona schools and Colorado are a embarrasingly bad and make ZERO sense. Calford both average 850k per week, double that of the Arizona schools and triple that of Colorado. USC (2 million per week), UCLA (1.59 million)

USC will get the turnout for Buck Eyes, but empty stadiums for Minnesota, Rutgers, and Maryland... why? because the NFL finally returned to LA, and that means the non-alumn fair weather fans dropped them and went to the Rams, and for Raiders fans being in Las Vegas is better than Oakland, so they are setting aside their money for Vegas trips. LA market has same youth issues as we do. None of this is unknown by the media execs, and if it is, then they have serious issues of incompetence.

What are the reasons that people speculate for why FOX won't let the B1G add Calford?

If they know this data then they massively overpaid for the LA market, and it doesn't really make sense over the next decade, but with the current situation FOX could get the #10 market on the cheap. and we can boost numbers quickly in ways that LA really can't. refer to others pointing out that Bay Area lost two pro sports teams. Calford have been having middling years and our Adobe analytics for TV show it, which means we get significant boosts if we play the majority of the B1G teams.

The only ACC teams with better numbers than Calford are? Clemson, Notre Dame, FSU, and NC State. UNC is right between Cal (857k) and Stanford (847). the rest are below us. Washington State, btw, averages 907k.

so... why would FOX, given the data, go after NC State and UNC, after they get Clemson and FSU to join the Big 10, but not Cal and Stanford? We have way better potential for ratings increases than either UNC or NC State. so...either multiple sources are lying and FOX doesn't have ulterior motives, or...you are wrong? The data all points to that you are flat out wrong.





So Fox sports has a political agenda against Cal, that's the gist of your argument?
are you not paying attention?
your lack of argumentation concedes all points, otherwise your argument is that Fox is incompetent and can't do basic math. lol

NC State, Clemson, Notre Dame, and FSU are the ONLY ACC schools better than Cal's media numbers. They all have (rumored) gaurantees to join B1G.

Those schools can't really increase significantly in viewership because they live in football country. and none of them really need to increase in numbers. Cal's numbers point to the potential for significant growth, to the numbers we had during the Marshawn, DeSean years. That gives us a lot of upside. and FOX can get us on the cheap right now. and they aren't. so you are obviously struggling with the math as much as you imply Fox is.
No struggle on this side and based on the current situation, my take on the so-called Bay Area market "value" aligns with the media companies and major conference views. Maybe the Big Ten and ACC are interested in taking us in, but clearly very far from full share. Yes, the Bay Area is a major media market, but despite our supposed potential, Cal has never garnered much attention locally or nationally. In 2022, Cal had 857,000 average viewers per week. Arizona and Arizona state averaged 506,000 and 314,000 a week in significantly smaller markets. Since 2016, Cal has had only 16 games with over one million viewers compared to 22 for ASU and 14 for Arizona. That's pathetic given the relative size of media markets involved. Look at attendance figures in 2022, which was a terrible year for Cal, Arizona, ASU and Colorado, yet all three of those schools averaged better attendance than Cal. Lots of talk about potential, but Cal has shown time and again they never reach it. I imagine when the media/conference presidents do the math, they realize Cal is institutionally challenged and if Cal did see additional media revenue, it wouldn't go into elevating football and basketball programs which would in turn elevate the conference. I imagine Arizona, ASU and Colorado leadership all pitched that additional media revenue would be used to improve their competitiveness. You think Knowlton can make that pitch?

Like it or not, college sports finally stopped pretending to be about student athletes and has shown its true colors as a multi-billion dollar business. Decisions are being made on risk and reward versus tradition and history and Cal is simply not a good investment at this time. You're welcome to rationalize the why, but money talks and right now, there is very little money coming to Cal.

any upswing in our performance and our ratings jump significantly, theirs wont because they are already pretty much at the max they will ever go because of their limited population size and the size of their media market.
Stanford has dominated PAC12 and has been in the national conversation over the last decade. Did ratings jump? Did all the millions of Bay Area households suddenly buy cable subscriptions? Talking about potential is sad and pathetic at this point. Like a fat and balding 40 year old saying he has the potential to make him an NFL QB because he's distant cousins with Jared Goff
Stanford's student body is tiny, ours isn't. Stanford is also all the way down in a part of the Bay that nobody really lives in except for very rich people, and the tiny sliver of land where workers live. Our numbers were much higher during Tedford's Marshawn and DeSean years. so, it isn't well wishing, but you keep clinging to an opinion that isn't grounded in the statistics we have seen. my point holds, and you cant negate it with your feelings.

if you insist on refusing to comprehend, then go dig up the ratings data and see for yourself. you really need to look at the viewing numbers. nielsen ratings are what they are, but you will have to account for the date we are getting from Adobe analytics in understanding what happens with viewership. enjoy pouring through the stats and finally understanding.


Tell me which scenario is more plausible:
1. All the media networks have looked at viewer data and ran hundreds of scenarios but ultimately decided that Cal's value isn't there even if viewers increased significantly from todays lows.

2. All the media networks have an irrational hatred against Cal and are leaving significant money on the table because they are emotionally driven to see Cal football fail.

I think it's entirely possible that they are only looking at the very short term on viewership and not thinking about potential long-term value. Fox probably knows as well as anyone that the current media contracts are over-inflated and a bubble likely to pop soon.
DoubtfulBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

DoubtfulBear said:










Tell me which scenario is more plausible:
1. All the media networks have looked at viewer data and ran hundreds of scenarios but ultimately decided that Cal's value isn't there even if viewers increased significantly from todays lows.

2. All the media networks have an irrational hatred against Cal and are leaving significant money on the table because they are emotionally driven to see Cal football fail.
You present a false choice, of course.

ESPN is apparently ready to put up enough money to make adding Cal and Stanford to the ACC either revenue-neutral or better for the existing ACC members. But so far, money isn't enough to get that 12th yes vote.


That's nothing more than a rumor. Frankly I don't understand this concept of Fox or ESPN trying to lowball us. If I am trying to sell a used Mercedes for $30K but potential buyers only want to pay $5K, then the market price is is $5K. If my car was worth more than someone would have made an offer already.
DoubtfulBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

DoubtfulBear said:

BarcaBear said:

DoubtfulBear said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BearGreg said:

StarsDoMatter said:

"Cal's NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal. The proof is obvious given the success that both Men's Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal"

You have to be kidding?!

Our transfer portal "success" is mediocre at best. Recruiting might the worst it's ever been.

We need to be honest with ourselves.
247 ranked Cal's Tranfer Class in 2023 15th nationally
On3 ranked the same transfer football clas 24th nationally

In basketball, On3 ranked Cal's basketball class 7th in the country
247 ranked the class 18th in the country


And yet the media picked Cal to finish near the bottom of the PAC-12 and most betting sites have us missing a bowl game yet again. When you look at what Cal has done in a vacuum, it seems like progress, but not when you take our competition into consideration.

Bottom line, the conferences and media companies have done the math and determined Cal adds little to no value.
you're flat out confusing two completely separate entities. media and college presidents.

Entity 1: corporate media have done the math and know that the Bay Area is the #10 media market. UCLA and USC have ZERO pull in this area for media. no media company would be facepalmingly dunderheaded enough to leave out the #10 media market (which btw, in times of economic duress, that media market becomes a strong factor in societal cohesion, relevant insofar as the region clings more to entertainment during hard times, and those hard times are coming). there is a reason they are not pushing harder for it.

Entity 2: college presidents are trying to hoard as much of the wealth as possible, because they are converting universities into businesses. those college presidents are the ones giving the heisman stiff arm to whatever colleges they can. the giants of college football have been whining about sharing money with mid to low level schools for decades. this finally allows them to shift the distribution of money in a way that reflects their belief that they should keep it all and give scraps to everyone else that they can.

do you honestly think a mediocre Arizona (media market #71, population of 550k) and Arizona St. (media market #12, population 1.8 million) is better than Cal and Stanford in a media market #10, population of 7.8 million people? you didn't do the math, but entertainment companies have.

companies can do the math. college presidents can, too. the reason for keeping Cal and Stanford out has different reasons. if the Conferences were genuinely trying to get Cal and Stanford in, then the argument is self explanatory, all media companies can do the math, and we would already be in a different conference.

but...at this point, the media companies aren't forcing the conferences because they see the opportunity of hiding behind college presidents in order to low ball the price for the Bay Area media market and get it for pennies on the dollar. except for FOX, and their ulterior motive.

*i have said elsewhere that Cal is fighting a weird rightwing paranoia about being a communist haven when the university has never ever even remotely been leftist. Its uneducated alumns in the South and Midwest and East Coast who don't realize that California banned affirmative action almost 30 years ago. So, when folks bring up that FOX chopped off the B1G balls, that is literally why. Someone posted the Clemson forums and more than half of the gibberish in that forum is that rightwing delusional fantasy about Cal being a fountain of revolutionary antifa. FOX is literally trying to smash Cal, and oddly enough, Stanford is getting smacked for it as well, and all because a bunch of non-student hippies swarmed Cal's campus in the 60's leading to Reagan having tear gas dropped on their heads. Cal is not leftist, but we are intellectual snobs. i don't think the snobs is why we get slammed by schools on the other side of the country.




Won't comment on all the conspiracy theories being thrown around here, however I question the argument about the Bay Area media market. Yes, it's the number ten media market but that doesn't translate into people actually watching and paying attention to Cal and Stanford games. The viewership isn't reflective of the size of the market. As for the Colorado and Arizona schools, my assumption is their respective leadership was much more aggressive in seeking a path out of the PAC-12 and they may be viewed as more likely to support and build respectable programs going forward with the increase in media revenue. Small markets with higher potential essentially.
nothing conspiratorial at all. this is data that is out there. multiple published sources have cited all this in one way or another. You have high hopes for what Colorado and Arizona schools can pull, i think them being brought into the B12 was more about cheaply bringing in schools that could boost them without increasing costs of travel. the TV model doesn't bode well for them.

you do bring up something I have spoken about elsewhere. TV viewership.
this isn't the Midwest or the South, the number of people watching TV is plummeting, Keep in mind this is California, not the rest of the country, and the following data is national, our percentages skew even lower.

Who follows the archaic (not meant as an insult) model of watching sports? it's basically the Boomer generation, like 50% watch cable TV. Gen X mirrors that with folks over 50, but those below that start breaking dramatically with that archaic model upon which all these contracts are built.

Between 19-25% of Millenials and Gen Z watch cable TV, rest are streaming. Younger they get the less cable TV they watch. I'm on the younger part of Gen X and since graduating I know almost nobody that watches sports using Cable TV. They don't subscribe. Younger folks stream. Not only do we stream, but almost nobody pays for subscriptions. It's folks using VPN's or TOR browser to stream illegally. Hate to break it to y'all, but that is the reality for sports moving forward. They haven't figured out a revenue model to offset this.

There is no brand allegiance, no morality notions that will ever break this trend. I think this is particular to East Coast and West Coast, for now, where youth demographics and tech knowledge reigns supreme. FOX, NBC, CBS are massively overpaying, because I said earlier, those percentages are national percentages.

Apple knows this, and this is the analytics behind why Apple came in with a very realistic offer of market value at around 20 million. Disney also knows this which is why ESPN isn't putting up FOX money. LA has the same problem. ignoring the joke of Neilsen ratings and turning to Adobe analytics...the Arizona schools and Colorado are a embarrasingly bad and make ZERO sense. Calford both average 850k per week, double that of the Arizona schools and triple that of Colorado. USC (2 million per week), UCLA (1.59 million)

USC will get the turnout for Buck Eyes, but empty stadiums for Minnesota, Rutgers, and Maryland... why? because the NFL finally returned to LA, and that means the non-alumn fair weather fans dropped them and went to the Rams, and for Raiders fans being in Las Vegas is better than Oakland, so they are setting aside their money for Vegas trips. LA market has same youth issues as we do. None of this is unknown by the media execs, and if it is, then they have serious issues of incompetence.

What are the reasons that people speculate for why FOX won't let the B1G add Calford?

If they know this data then they massively overpaid for the LA market, and it doesn't really make sense over the next decade, but with the current situation FOX could get the #10 market on the cheap. and we can boost numbers quickly in ways that LA really can't. refer to others pointing out that Bay Area lost two pro sports teams. Calford have been having middling years and our Adobe analytics for TV show it, which means we get significant boosts if we play the majority of the B1G teams.

The only ACC teams with better numbers than Calford are? Clemson, Notre Dame, FSU, and NC State. UNC is right between Cal (857k) and Stanford (847). the rest are below us. Washington State, btw, averages 907k.

so... why would FOX, given the data, go after NC State and UNC, after they get Clemson and FSU to join the Big 10, but not Cal and Stanford? We have way better potential for ratings increases than either UNC or NC State. so...either multiple sources are lying and FOX doesn't have ulterior motives, or...you are wrong? The data all points to that you are flat out wrong.





So Fox sports has a political agenda against Cal, that's the gist of your argument?
are you not paying attention?
your lack of argumentation concedes all points, otherwise your argument is that Fox is incompetent and can't do basic math. lol

NC State, Clemson, Notre Dame, and FSU are the ONLY ACC schools better than Cal's media numbers. They all have (rumored) gaurantees to join B1G.

Those schools can't really increase significantly in viewership because they live in football country. and none of them really need to increase in numbers. Cal's numbers point to the potential for significant growth, to the numbers we had during the Marshawn, DeSean years. That gives us a lot of upside. and FOX can get us on the cheap right now. and they aren't. so you are obviously struggling with the math as much as you imply Fox is.
No struggle on this side and based on the current situation, my take on the so-called Bay Area market "value" aligns with the media companies and major conference views. Maybe the Big Ten and ACC are interested in taking us in, but clearly very far from full share. Yes, the Bay Area is a major media market, but despite our supposed potential, Cal has never garnered much attention locally or nationally. In 2022, Cal had 857,000 average viewers per week. Arizona and Arizona state averaged 506,000 and 314,000 a week in significantly smaller markets. Since 2016, Cal has had only 16 games with over one million viewers compared to 22 for ASU and 14 for Arizona. That's pathetic given the relative size of media markets involved. Look at attendance figures in 2022, which was a terrible year for Cal, Arizona, ASU and Colorado, yet all three of those schools averaged better attendance than Cal. Lots of talk about potential, but Cal has shown time and again they never reach it. I imagine when the media/conference presidents do the math, they realize Cal is institutionally challenged and if Cal did see additional media revenue, it wouldn't go into elevating football and basketball programs which would in turn elevate the conference. I imagine Arizona, ASU and Colorado leadership all pitched that additional media revenue would be used to improve their competitiveness. You think Knowlton can make that pitch?

Like it or not, college sports finally stopped pretending to be about student athletes and has shown its true colors as a multi-billion dollar business. Decisions are being made on risk and reward versus tradition and history and Cal is simply not a good investment at this time. You're welcome to rationalize the why, but money talks and right now, there is very little money coming to Cal.

any upswing in our performance and our ratings jump significantly, theirs wont because they are already pretty much at the max they will ever go because of their limited population size and the size of their media market.
Stanford has dominated PAC12 and has been in the national conversation over the last decade. Did ratings jump? Did all the millions of Bay Area households suddenly buy cable subscriptions? Talking about potential is sad and pathetic at this point. Like a fat and balding 40 year old saying he has the potential to make him an NFL QB because he's distant cousins with Jared Goff
Stanford's student body is tiny, ours isn't. Stanford is also all the way down in a part of the Bay that nobody really lives in except for very rich people, and the tiny sliver of land where workers live. Our numbers were much higher during Tedford's Marshawn and DeSean years. so, it isn't well wishing, but you keep clinging to an opinion that isn't grounded in the statistics we have seen. my point holds, and you cant negate it with your feelings.

if you insist on refusing to comprehend, then go dig up the ratings data and see for yourself. you really need to look at the viewing numbers. nielsen ratings are what they are, but you will have to account for the date we are getting from Adobe analytics in understanding what happens with viewership. enjoy pouring through the stats and finally understanding.


Tell me which scenario is more plausible:
1. All the media networks have looked at viewer data and ran hundreds of scenarios but ultimately decided that Cal's value isn't there even if viewers increased significantly from todays lows.

2. All the media networks have an irrational hatred against Cal and are leaving significant money on the table because they are emotionally driven to see Cal football fail.

I think it's entirely possible that they are only looking at the very short term on viewership and not thinking about potential long-term value. Fox probably knows as well as anyone that the current media contracts are over-inflated and a bubble likely to pop soon.
If the bubble pops soon then there will be little value for everyone. What do you mean potential long term value?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DoubtfulBear said:

sycasey said:

DoubtfulBear said:

BarcaBear said:

DoubtfulBear said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BarcaBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BearGreg said:

StarsDoMatter said:

"Cal's NIL Collective is among the largest and most viable in the Pac-12 and arguably would be in the top half of a newly formed B10 inclusive of Stanford and Cal. The proof is obvious given the success that both Men's Basketball and Football had this past offseason in the portal"

You have to be kidding?!

Our transfer portal "success" is mediocre at best. Recruiting might the worst it's ever been.

We need to be honest with ourselves.
247 ranked Cal's Tranfer Class in 2023 15th nationally
On3 ranked the same transfer football clas 24th nationally

In basketball, On3 ranked Cal's basketball class 7th in the country
247 ranked the class 18th in the country


And yet the media picked Cal to finish near the bottom of the PAC-12 and most betting sites have us missing a bowl game yet again. When you look at what Cal has done in a vacuum, it seems like progress, but not when you take our competition into consideration.

Bottom line, the conferences and media companies have done the math and determined Cal adds little to no value.
you're flat out confusing two completely separate entities. media and college presidents.

Entity 1: corporate media have done the math and know that the Bay Area is the #10 media market. UCLA and USC have ZERO pull in this area for media. no media company would be facepalmingly dunderheaded enough to leave out the #10 media market (which btw, in times of economic duress, that media market becomes a strong factor in societal cohesion, relevant insofar as the region clings more to entertainment during hard times, and those hard times are coming). there is a reason they are not pushing harder for it.

Entity 2: college presidents are trying to hoard as much of the wealth as possible, because they are converting universities into businesses. those college presidents are the ones giving the heisman stiff arm to whatever colleges they can. the giants of college football have been whining about sharing money with mid to low level schools for decades. this finally allows them to shift the distribution of money in a way that reflects their belief that they should keep it all and give scraps to everyone else that they can.

do you honestly think a mediocre Arizona (media market #71, population of 550k) and Arizona St. (media market #12, population 1.8 million) is better than Cal and Stanford in a media market #10, population of 7.8 million people? you didn't do the math, but entertainment companies have.

companies can do the math. college presidents can, too. the reason for keeping Cal and Stanford out has different reasons. if the Conferences were genuinely trying to get Cal and Stanford in, then the argument is self explanatory, all media companies can do the math, and we would already be in a different conference.

but...at this point, the media companies aren't forcing the conferences because they see the opportunity of hiding behind college presidents in order to low ball the price for the Bay Area media market and get it for pennies on the dollar. except for FOX, and their ulterior motive.

*i have said elsewhere that Cal is fighting a weird rightwing paranoia about being a communist haven when the university has never ever even remotely been leftist. Its uneducated alumns in the South and Midwest and East Coast who don't realize that California banned affirmative action almost 30 years ago. So, when folks bring up that FOX chopped off the B1G balls, that is literally why. Someone posted the Clemson forums and more than half of the gibberish in that forum is that rightwing delusional fantasy about Cal being a fountain of revolutionary antifa. FOX is literally trying to smash Cal, and oddly enough, Stanford is getting smacked for it as well, and all because a bunch of non-student hippies swarmed Cal's campus in the 60's leading to Reagan having tear gas dropped on their heads. Cal is not leftist, but we are intellectual snobs. i don't think the snobs is why we get slammed by schools on the other side of the country.




Won't comment on all the conspiracy theories being thrown around here, however I question the argument about the Bay Area media market. Yes, it's the number ten media market but that doesn't translate into people actually watching and paying attention to Cal and Stanford games. The viewership isn't reflective of the size of the market. As for the Colorado and Arizona schools, my assumption is their respective leadership was much more aggressive in seeking a path out of the PAC-12 and they may be viewed as more likely to support and build respectable programs going forward with the increase in media revenue. Small markets with higher potential essentially.
nothing conspiratorial at all. this is data that is out there. multiple published sources have cited all this in one way or another. You have high hopes for what Colorado and Arizona schools can pull, i think them being brought into the B12 was more about cheaply bringing in schools that could boost them without increasing costs of travel. the TV model doesn't bode well for them.

you do bring up something I have spoken about elsewhere. TV viewership.
this isn't the Midwest or the South, the number of people watching TV is plummeting, Keep in mind this is California, not the rest of the country, and the following data is national, our percentages skew even lower.

Who follows the archaic (not meant as an insult) model of watching sports? it's basically the Boomer generation, like 50% watch cable TV. Gen X mirrors that with folks over 50, but those below that start breaking dramatically with that archaic model upon which all these contracts are built.

Between 19-25% of Millenials and Gen Z watch cable TV, rest are streaming. Younger they get the less cable TV they watch. I'm on the younger part of Gen X and since graduating I know almost nobody that watches sports using Cable TV. They don't subscribe. Younger folks stream. Not only do we stream, but almost nobody pays for subscriptions. It's folks using VPN's or TOR browser to stream illegally. Hate to break it to y'all, but that is the reality for sports moving forward. They haven't figured out a revenue model to offset this.

There is no brand allegiance, no morality notions that will ever break this trend. I think this is particular to East Coast and West Coast, for now, where youth demographics and tech knowledge reigns supreme. FOX, NBC, CBS are massively overpaying, because I said earlier, those percentages are national percentages.

Apple knows this, and this is the analytics behind why Apple came in with a very realistic offer of market value at around 20 million. Disney also knows this which is why ESPN isn't putting up FOX money. LA has the same problem. ignoring the joke of Neilsen ratings and turning to Adobe analytics...the Arizona schools and Colorado are a embarrasingly bad and make ZERO sense. Calford both average 850k per week, double that of the Arizona schools and triple that of Colorado. USC (2 million per week), UCLA (1.59 million)

USC will get the turnout for Buck Eyes, but empty stadiums for Minnesota, Rutgers, and Maryland... why? because the NFL finally returned to LA, and that means the non-alumn fair weather fans dropped them and went to the Rams, and for Raiders fans being in Las Vegas is better than Oakland, so they are setting aside their money for Vegas trips. LA market has same youth issues as we do. None of this is unknown by the media execs, and if it is, then they have serious issues of incompetence.

What are the reasons that people speculate for why FOX won't let the B1G add Calford?

If they know this data then they massively overpaid for the LA market, and it doesn't really make sense over the next decade, but with the current situation FOX could get the #10 market on the cheap. and we can boost numbers quickly in ways that LA really can't. refer to others pointing out that Bay Area lost two pro sports teams. Calford have been having middling years and our Adobe analytics for TV show it, which means we get significant boosts if we play the majority of the B1G teams.

The only ACC teams with better numbers than Calford are? Clemson, Notre Dame, FSU, and NC State. UNC is right between Cal (857k) and Stanford (847). the rest are below us. Washington State, btw, averages 907k.

so... why would FOX, given the data, go after NC State and UNC, after they get Clemson and FSU to join the Big 10, but not Cal and Stanford? We have way better potential for ratings increases than either UNC or NC State. so...either multiple sources are lying and FOX doesn't have ulterior motives, or...you are wrong? The data all points to that you are flat out wrong.





So Fox sports has a political agenda against Cal, that's the gist of your argument?
are you not paying attention?
your lack of argumentation concedes all points, otherwise your argument is that Fox is incompetent and can't do basic math. lol

NC State, Clemson, Notre Dame, and FSU are the ONLY ACC schools better than Cal's media numbers. They all have (rumored) gaurantees to join B1G.

Those schools can't really increase significantly in viewership because they live in football country. and none of them really need to increase in numbers. Cal's numbers point to the potential for significant growth, to the numbers we had during the Marshawn, DeSean years. That gives us a lot of upside. and FOX can get us on the cheap right now. and they aren't. so you are obviously struggling with the math as much as you imply Fox is.
No struggle on this side and based on the current situation, my take on the so-called Bay Area market "value" aligns with the media companies and major conference views. Maybe the Big Ten and ACC are interested in taking us in, but clearly very far from full share. Yes, the Bay Area is a major media market, but despite our supposed potential, Cal has never garnered much attention locally or nationally. In 2022, Cal had 857,000 average viewers per week. Arizona and Arizona state averaged 506,000 and 314,000 a week in significantly smaller markets. Since 2016, Cal has had only 16 games with over one million viewers compared to 22 for ASU and 14 for Arizona. That's pathetic given the relative size of media markets involved. Look at attendance figures in 2022, which was a terrible year for Cal, Arizona, ASU and Colorado, yet all three of those schools averaged better attendance than Cal. Lots of talk about potential, but Cal has shown time and again they never reach it. I imagine when the media/conference presidents do the math, they realize Cal is institutionally challenged and if Cal did see additional media revenue, it wouldn't go into elevating football and basketball programs which would in turn elevate the conference. I imagine Arizona, ASU and Colorado leadership all pitched that additional media revenue would be used to improve their competitiveness. You think Knowlton can make that pitch?

Like it or not, college sports finally stopped pretending to be about student athletes and has shown its true colors as a multi-billion dollar business. Decisions are being made on risk and reward versus tradition and history and Cal is simply not a good investment at this time. You're welcome to rationalize the why, but money talks and right now, there is very little money coming to Cal.

any upswing in our performance and our ratings jump significantly, theirs wont because they are already pretty much at the max they will ever go because of their limited population size and the size of their media market.
Stanford has dominated PAC12 and has been in the national conversation over the last decade. Did ratings jump? Did all the millions of Bay Area households suddenly buy cable subscriptions? Talking about potential is sad and pathetic at this point. Like a fat and balding 40 year old saying he has the potential to make him an NFL QB because he's distant cousins with Jared Goff
Stanford's student body is tiny, ours isn't. Stanford is also all the way down in a part of the Bay that nobody really lives in except for very rich people, and the tiny sliver of land where workers live. Our numbers were much higher during Tedford's Marshawn and DeSean years. so, it isn't well wishing, but you keep clinging to an opinion that isn't grounded in the statistics we have seen. my point holds, and you cant negate it with your feelings.

if you insist on refusing to comprehend, then go dig up the ratings data and see for yourself. you really need to look at the viewing numbers. nielsen ratings are what they are, but you will have to account for the date we are getting from Adobe analytics in understanding what happens with viewership. enjoy pouring through the stats and finally understanding.


Tell me which scenario is more plausible:
1. All the media networks have looked at viewer data and ran hundreds of scenarios but ultimately decided that Cal's value isn't there even if viewers increased significantly from todays lows.

2. All the media networks have an irrational hatred against Cal and are leaving significant money on the table because they are emotionally driven to see Cal football fail.

I think it's entirely possible that they are only looking at the very short term on viewership and not thinking about potential long-term value. Fox probably knows as well as anyone that the current media contracts are over-inflated and a bubble likely to pop soon.
If the bubble pops soon then there will be little value for everyone. What do you mean potential long term value?

I mean they aren't looking at the long term value because they don't think it will matter to them (though it might matter to the B1G schools).
HKBear97!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DoubtfulBear said:

BearSD said:

DoubtfulBear said:










Tell me which scenario is more plausible:
1. All the media networks have looked at viewer data and ran hundreds of scenarios but ultimately decided that Cal's value isn't there even if viewers increased significantly from todays lows.

2. All the media networks have an irrational hatred against Cal and are leaving significant money on the table because they are emotionally driven to see Cal football fail.
You present a false choice, of course.

ESPN is apparently ready to put up enough money to make adding Cal and Stanford to the ACC either revenue-neutral or better for the existing ACC members. But so far, money isn't enough to get that 12th yes vote.


That's nothing more than a rumor. Frankly I don't understand this concept of Fox or ESPN trying to lowball us. If I am trying to sell a used Mercedes for $30K but potential buyers only want to pay $5K, then the market price is is $5K. If my car was worth more than someone would have made an offer already.


Some here live in fantasy land with surreal conspiracy theories galore.

Cal has a year. We will all see where they actually end up and at what price.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DoubtfulBear said:

BearSD said:

DoubtfulBear said:










Tell me which scenario is more plausible:
1. All the media networks have looked at viewer data and ran hundreds of scenarios but ultimately decided that Cal's value isn't there even if viewers increased significantly from todays lows.

2. All the media networks have an irrational hatred against Cal and are leaving significant money on the table because they are emotionally driven to see Cal football fail.
You present a false choice, of course.

ESPN is apparently ready to put up enough money to make adding Cal and Stanford to the ACC either revenue-neutral or better for the existing ACC members. But so far, money isn't enough to get that 12th yes vote.

That's nothing more than a rumor. Frankly I don't understand this concept of Fox or ESPN trying to lowball us. If I am trying to sell a used Mercedes for $30K but potential buyers only want to pay $5K, then the market price is is $5K. If my car was worth more than someone would have made an offer already.
LOL. I guess you win points for consistency, because every single comment you have ever posted on this board stretches things as far as possible to try to reach the most negative possible scenario.
CNHTH
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And a year we will have!
I'm willing these ****ers to Pasadena and Phoenix next spring.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

DoubtfulBear said:

BearSD said:

DoubtfulBear said:










Tell me which scenario is more plausible:
1. All the media networks have looked at viewer data and ran hundreds of scenarios but ultimately decided that Cal's value isn't there even if viewers increased significantly from todays lows.

2. All the media networks have an irrational hatred against Cal and are leaving significant money on the table because they are emotionally driven to see Cal football fail.
You present a false choice, of course.

ESPN is apparently ready to put up enough money to make adding Cal and Stanford to the ACC either revenue-neutral or better for the existing ACC members. But so far, money isn't enough to get that 12th yes vote.

That's nothing more than a rumor. Frankly I don't understand this concept of Fox or ESPN trying to lowball us. If I am trying to sell a used Mercedes for $30K but potential buyers only want to pay $5K, then the market price is is $5K. If my car was worth more than someone would have made an offer already.
LOL. I guess you win points for consistency, because every single comment you have ever posted on this board stretches things as far as possible to try to reach the most negative possible scenario.

Can't say he didn't warn us with his username.
DoubtfulBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

DoubtfulBear said:

BearSD said:

DoubtfulBear said:










Tell me which scenario is more plausible:
1. All the media networks have looked at viewer data and ran hundreds of scenarios but ultimately decided that Cal's value isn't there even if viewers increased significantly from todays lows.

2. All the media networks have an irrational hatred against Cal and are leaving significant money on the table because they are emotionally driven to see Cal football fail.
You present a false choice, of course.

ESPN is apparently ready to put up enough money to make adding Cal and Stanford to the ACC either revenue-neutral or better for the existing ACC members. But so far, money isn't enough to get that 12th yes vote.

That's nothing more than a rumor. Frankly I don't understand this concept of Fox or ESPN trying to lowball us. If I am trying to sell a used Mercedes for $30K but potential buyers only want to pay $5K, then the market price is is $5K. If my car was worth more than someone would have made an offer already.
LOL. I guess you win points for consistency, because every single comment you have ever posted on this board stretches things as far as possible to try to reach the most negative possible scenario.
So far I've been proven right time and again. While the optimists continuously cycle through the stages of grief, grasping at any hint of a positive rumor.
GoCal80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I follow the Editor-in-chief of the journal Science on Twitter/X. I was quite surprised to see him provide commentary on the Pac12's demise and how UCLA screwed over Cal in a short thread:

Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HKBear97! said:

DoubtfulBear said:

BearSD said:

DoubtfulBear said:










Tell me which scenario is more plausible:
1. All the media networks have looked at viewer data and ran hundreds of scenarios but ultimately decided that Cal's value isn't there even if viewers increased significantly from todays lows.

2. All the media networks have an irrational hatred against Cal and are leaving significant money on the table because they are emotionally driven to see Cal football fail.
You present a false choice, of course.

ESPN is apparently ready to put up enough money to make adding Cal and Stanford to the ACC either revenue-neutral or better for the existing ACC members. But so far, money isn't enough to get that 12th yes vote.


That's nothing more than a rumor. Frankly I don't understand this concept of Fox or ESPN trying to lowball us. If I am trying to sell a used Mercedes for $30K but potential buyers only want to pay $5K, then the market price is is $5K. If my car was worth more than someone would have made an offer already.


Some here live in fantasy land with surreal conspiracy theories galore.

Cal has a year. We will all see where they actually end up and at what price.

Theoretically, we have a year or even more (however long we can stay afloat and viable). But what happens in December when the transfer portal opens back up, if we don't show we have a top conference to play in?
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GoCal80 said:

I follow the Editor-in-chief of the journal Science on Twitter/X. I was quite surprised to see him provide commentary on the Pac12's demise and how UCLA screwed over Cal in a short thread:




I'm not quite sure what he is saying about the ceremonial delegation. My understanding was that it's not ceremonial (at UC) - each campus has some autonomy, but obviously the bit about Block about to retire does make the blowback easier on him. Other schools like Colorado needed Regent approval.

It would differ for each university too, based on their charter/state laws.

Interestingly, Holden Thorp was the UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor that was forced to resign in the midst of their fake class scandal (which should have had a bigger impact on UNC's accreditation or AAU status IMO).
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

GoCal80 said:

I follow the Editor-in-chief of the journal Science on Twitter/X. I was quite surprised to see him provide commentary on the Pac12's demise and how UCLA screwed over Cal in a short thread:




I'm not quite sure what he is saying about the ceremonial delegation. My understanding was that it's not ceremonial (at UC) - each campus has some autonomy, but obviously the bit about Block about to retire does make the blowback easier on him. Other schools like Colorado needed Regent approval.

It would differ for each university too, based on their charter/state laws.

Interestingly, Holden Thorp was the UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor that was forced to resign in the midst of their fake class scandal (which should have had a bigger impact on UNC's accreditation or AAU status IMO).


Yeah, I didn't understand his comments either. I am not sure what he was trying to say other than he doesn't like boards telling him what to do.

HKBear97!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

HKBear97! said:

DoubtfulBear said:

BearSD said:

DoubtfulBear said:










Tell me which scenario is more plausible:
1. All the media networks have looked at viewer data and ran hundreds of scenarios but ultimately decided that Cal's value isn't there even if viewers increased significantly from todays lows.

2. All the media networks have an irrational hatred against Cal and are leaving significant money on the table because they are emotionally driven to see Cal football fail.
You present a false choice, of course.

ESPN is apparently ready to put up enough money to make adding Cal and Stanford to the ACC either revenue-neutral or better for the existing ACC members. But so far, money isn't enough to get that 12th yes vote.


That's nothing more than a rumor. Frankly I don't understand this concept of Fox or ESPN trying to lowball us. If I am trying to sell a used Mercedes for $30K but potential buyers only want to pay $5K, then the market price is is $5K. If my car was worth more than someone would have made an offer already.


Some here live in fantasy land with surreal conspiracy theories galore.

Cal has a year. We will all see where they actually end up and at what price.

Theoretically, we have a year or even more (however long we can stay afloat and viable). But what happens in December when the transfer portal opens back up, if we don't show we have a top conference to play in?


I'm fully expecting a mass exodus of talent. Unless there is some viable progress toward a strong conference in the next few weeks, players will likely be auditioning for their new schools this season. And more power to them - they deserve better than Cal.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HKBear97! said:




I'm fully expecting a mass exodus of talent. Unless there is some viable progress toward a strong conference in the next few weeks, players will likely be auditioning for their new schools this season. And more power to them - they deserve better than Cal.
I cant imagine anyone with talent playing past the 4th game (Sept. 23rd) of the season and not taking advantage of their Red Shirt.
The "portal" is going to be absolutely INSANE when it opens Dec. 5th.

"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GoCal80 said:

I follow the Editor-in-chief of the journal Science on Twitter/X. I was quite surprised to see him provide commentary on the Pac12's demise and how UCLA screwed over Cal in a short thread:


Except he doesn't get governance. UCLA doesn't report to the board. Chancellor reports to the OOP who, in turn, reports to the Regents. There is no "ceremony"

God. Fellow academics dont' even get UC governance.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

HKBear97! said:




I'm fully expecting a mass exodus of talent. Unless there is some viable progress toward a strong conference in the next few weeks, players will likely be auditioning for their new schools this season. And more power to them - they deserve better than Cal.
I cant imagine anyone with talent playing past the 4th game (Sept. 23rd) of the season and not taking advantage of their Red Shirt.
The "portal" is going to be absolutely INSANE when it opens Dec. 5th.


I think we don't know. Clearly Cal is losing a ton of "I can make the NFL" talent. but a few things stand out.

1) The NFL is a brutal career path. IIRC the average length of tenure is 3 years. No guaranteed contracts. One knee injury away. And kids playing football KNOW this.
2) Cal is better than a lot of landing places. Not all credits transfer.

So I expect a huge number of transfers but as I said in another thread - IF Cal opts for MWC or AAC the good news is that we suddenly become - by leaps and bounds - the best academic option for kids. This isn't a wobbler situation like Cal vs. UCLA.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

DiabloWags said:

HKBear97! said:




I'm fully expecting a mass exodus of talent. Unless there is some viable progress toward a strong conference in the next few weeks, players will likely be auditioning for their new schools this season. And more power to them - they deserve better than Cal.
I cant imagine anyone with talent playing past the 4th game (Sept. 23rd) of the season and not taking advantage of their Red Shirt.
The "portal" is going to be absolutely INSANE when it opens Dec. 5th.


I think we don't know. Clearly Cal is losing a ton of "I can make the NFL" talent. but a few things stand out.

1) The NFL is a brutal career path. IIRC the average length of tenure is 3 years. No guaranteed contracts. One knee injury away. And kids playing football KNOW this.
2) Cal is better than a lot of landing places. Not all credits transfer.

So I expect a huge number of transfers but as I said in another thread - IF Cal opts for MWC or AAC the good news is that we suddenly become - by leaps and bounds - the best academic option for kids. This isn't a wobbler situation like Cal vs. UCLA.
I can't see how that would help in recruiting the best football and basketball players, or even the second-best tier of football and basketball players. Example: Rice has, AFAIK, been the best academic option in every conference they've ever been in, and they haven't been good in football since the 1950s.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

socaltownie said:

DiabloWags said:

HKBear97! said:




I'm fully expecting a mass exodus of talent. Unless there is some viable progress toward a strong conference in the next few weeks, players will likely be auditioning for their new schools this season. And more power to them - they deserve better than Cal.
I cant imagine anyone with talent playing past the 4th game (Sept. 23rd) of the season and not taking advantage of their Red Shirt.
The "portal" is going to be absolutely INSANE when it opens Dec. 5th.


I think we don't know. Clearly Cal is losing a ton of "I can make the NFL" talent. but a few things stand out.

1) The NFL is a brutal career path. IIRC the average length of tenure is 3 years. No guaranteed contracts. One knee injury away. And kids playing football KNOW this.
2) Cal is better than a lot of landing places. Not all credits transfer.

So I expect a huge number of transfers but as I said in another thread - IF Cal opts for MWC or AAC the good news is that we suddenly become - by leaps and bounds - the best academic option for kids. This isn't a wobbler situation like Cal vs. UCLA.
I can't see how that would help in recruiting the best football and basketball players, or even the second-best tier of football and basketball players. Example: Rice has, AFAIK, been the best academic option in every conference they've ever been in, and they haven't been good in football since the 1950s.
Bailiff arguably has had more success than WIlcox/Sonny.
Dotyman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think it's time we accept that Cal no longer has a competitive, let alone premier, NCAA sports program.

Boutique sports like swimming, rowing and rugby don't cut it.

I have never been more disappointed with the performance of our teams as I am now. I graduated in 1994 from Haas, and gladly donated annually to many of the sports programsespecially football. Under Tedford, there was hope, although he never was able to lead a team to the top.

Since then, frankly, we've sucked. My donations have stopped. I don't like wasting money on a losing program.

I say let it die, and let's wait for the real Cal talent to resurrect the winning ways in another decade or so.

I am SO tired of watching Cal teams embarrassingly underperform. I thought we attended the school to become winners?

When your university varsity teams are no better than intramural club teams, that's the league they belong in.

Out current athletic department crisis has been a LONG time coming.

Let it die, and put Knowlton and Crisis on the grave stone.

Out.



oskiswifeshusband
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Drama queen
PappysBoy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I feel your pain. Cal fandom is not for the weak. There are zero fair weather Cal fans. In those rare moments when Cal finds success it's invariably because we've had good leadership--not just good coaches, but support from the chancellors office and the AD. There has been a gaping void there since Barbour left, and even Wilton, who was a shrewd administrator. I think Christ is wonderful in many regards, but I don't think she was ever particularly curious about athletics and i think was happy to maintain it rather than cultivate or strengthen it. And the AD is basically a reflection of and has governed to those minimal expectations. Put that in the comparison to someone like Chancellor Lin Thien and you can see how that support and those heightened expectations translate all the way down to the players themselves. Until we have the right leadership in place, it's only going to get harder, not easier.
phyrux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dotyman said:

I think it's time we accept that Cal no longer has a competitive, let alone premier, NCAA sports program.

Boutique sports like swimming, rowing and rugby don't cut it.

I have never been more disappointed with the performance of our teams as I am now. I graduated in 1994 from Haas, and gladly donated annually to many of the sports programs especially football. Under Tedford, there was hope, although he never was able to lead a team to the top.

Since then, frankly, we've sucked. My donations have stopped. I don't like wasting money on a losing program.

I say let it die, and let's wait for the real Cal talent to resurrect the winning ways in another decade or so.

I am SO tired of watching Cal teams embarrassingly underperform. I thought we attended the school to become winners?

When your university varsity teams are no better than intramural club teams, that's the league they belong in.

Out current athletic department crisis has been a LONG time coming.

Let it die, and put Knowlton and Crisis on the grave stone.

Out.




Cal football and high level IA is never coming back if it shuts down. Its opponents will destroy the infrastructure and salt the earth. The time to save Cal sports is now.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.